Pullen admits violent disorder and the other 11 defendants have pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution say a 13th defendant, Ian Young, 41, of Brightwell Avenue, Westcliff, remained inside the Railway Tavern at the time of the attack. He denies assisting a criminal offender by hiding them while police were conducting a search.

All 13 defendants deny conspiracy to commit violent disorder.

16:21

Case adjourned

Mr Witcombe’s speech has ended and the case has been adjourned to 10.15am tomorrow.

16:20

Carter's defence Mr Witcombe concludes

Mr Witcombe: “‘They don’t have the guts to tell you what took place,’ are the words of Mr Jackson [prosecution]. They don’t have to. Full stop. They don’t have to say anything if they don’t want to. The crown has to prove the case. You may not convict Ryan Carter simply because he has chosen to keep his silence.”

Mr Witcombe: “The crown say the scouting party is there to flush Simon Dobbin and the others out. No they didn’t. Let’s nail this once and for all. They were dancing to the jukebox and singing along. They had another pint of beer.

“That is not Simon Dobbin and the others being flushed out and intimidated. It’s a pretty long flush if that is to be believed. If that is the case and they are not flushed out, there is not a conspiracy.”

16:16

'There is no footage of him in cahoots with other defendants'

Mr Witcombe: “After Carter comes into the pub, you have a period right up until after 6.30pm, where there is no footage of him in cahoots with other defendants, having arms round the shoulder in conversations, looking like he is busying himself with a conspiracy.

“What you have is the opposite, because a group of Cambridge risk supporters assembled outside the pub. What does Mr Carter do? He walks over to the door, has a look and walks back again.

“All the while, the Cambridge supporters are outside, goading the Southend supporters inside. If Mr Carter has been plotting a revenge attack for the best part of an hour and a half, now is the time.”

Mr Witcombe: “The crown would have you believe the Facebook comment is a grand admission. It is not an admission. It does not say it was Simon Dobbin’s blood.

“Just to be entirely clear – ‘Got blood all in me shoe.’ The crown tells you this message tells you Carter had been right in the thick of the violent disorder. No it doesn’t, because it was not Simon Dobbin’s blood.

“It gets worse, because what the crown now say in their closing submissions to you, is the shoes Ryan Carter was wearing that night were never recovered.

“Where does that come from? They say Ryan Carter got rid of them. No evidence at all that took place. They say: ‘You can be sure it was Simon Dobbin’s blood.’ That, ladies and gentlemen, is nonsense. It is disingenuous at best.”

16:09

'If he had something to hide, why would he do that?'

Mr Witcombe: “Mr Wilson told us 20 came out of the pub. ‘Some stayed as spectators like me,’ he said. Not egging them on. Just ‘spectators like me’.

“What do we know about Ryan Carter’s movements on that day? We know he went through the cordon. He gave his name and his details. If he had something to hide, why would he do that? There is no evidence he had any marks on him or injuries or blood on his white trainers.

“You may think if he kicked Mr Dobbin and left some blood on his shoes it would have been spotted by the officers.

“A mark on his knuckle six days later is insufficient for you to be sure of participation.”

16:03

'Potentially 18 people not involved' in attack, says defence

Mr Witcombe: “Kevin Livermore, one of the crown’s star witnesses, can’t say which of the 20 people were involved. A total of four to six? Yes, he said that, when it was put to him. We have a maximum of six people attacking the two victims of violence. That means we have potentially 18 people not involved.”

16:00

'Why would he make the Facebook comment?'

Mr Witcombe addresses Carter’s Facebook comment about having blood on his shoe.

He said: “How likely is it for there to be not a shred of Simon Dobbin’s blood on his shoes or clothing if he was responsible for the attack?

“His shoes were seized six days later. You may take the view that if they were covered in Simon Dobbins blood and then he cleaned them, why would he make the Facebook comment? It doesn’t add up.”

15:47

Ryan Carter's defence now addresses jury

Christopher Witcombe, defending Ryan Carter is now addressing the jury.

Mr Witcombe: “We cannot say for sure which of those men outside the Railway Tavern were responsible for attacking Mr Dobbin. For 108 seconds Mr Carter is outside the Railway Tavern at the time of the attack.

“That is not enough to make you sure he is involved in the attack. Over 50 per cent of the people who left the Railway Tavern are not in the dock. Mr Carter does not feature on any CCTV outside the pub at all.”

15:43

Mr Lawson concludes

Mr Lawson: “You know Greg Allen’s nickname was ‘Monster’. You know, according to Mr Young’s evidence, he is known as Monster because he looks like one.”

This concludes his speech.

15:36

'There is no evidence he did anything outside the Railway Tavern that night'

Mr Lawson: “Whether you hold the silence in police interview against him is entirely up to you. The same as silence in trial. There are many reasons someone may choose not to give evidence.

“There is no evidence he did anything outside the Railway Tavern that night. There is nothing on which you can rely to suggest he did anything or encouraged others to do anything. Mere presence is not enough. If you go out for a nosey that is not enough.”

15:28

Defence: Allen's previous convictions do not show violence

Mr Lawson: “Previous convictions. He’s got two. They do not show any participation in violence. In 2007, when he was 19 – throwing beer over a copper and chanting at opposition fans. Does that mean, throwing a pint over a copper, that you get involved in this? No.”

He also refers to an incident in 2013 in which Allen used obscene language at a football match.

“Just on the facts of those you could arrest most of the crowd,” he said.

15:24

Evidence does not point to 'single common purpose to attack', says defence

Mr Lawson: “On count two, the crown’s case is they all went out with a single common purpose to attack immediately. But again, the evidence doesn’t support a single common purpose to attack immediately.

“Twenty-four people went out. David Beck said 15 crossed the road. Daniel Wilson spoke about 15 coming out and ten to 15 crossing the road. Stephen Goddard says six to 10 ran across the road. What you now know is it was not only these defendants who went outside.

“It doesn’t mean any of them who went outside were contributing or intending anything to happen.

“Are there others who were out for much longer than Greg Allen? Yes. It is undoubtedly the evidence that some people went outside to have a nosey, to have a look at what was going on. “Was Greg Allen one of the ones who changed his clothes afterwards? Not at all.”

15:18

Cambridge fans' conduct caused exodus from Railway, says witness

Mr Lawson: “One witness, Jennifer Morgan, said some of the Cambridge group are at the pub, and it is their conduct which causes those inside to come out.

Mr Lawson reminds the jury when two other witnesses said Cambridge group members throwing objects at the pub caused those inside to come out.

He added: “Each of them have some of the Cambridge group at the pub, drawing attention to themselves.

“It cannot be maintained on the evidence that the group of Cambridge fans were walking down the street oblivious. It cannot be maintained there was no interaction.

“It is relevant because you need to decide what triggered the departure of Pullen out of the pub. On the evidence you may think the triggering conduct was not any pre-plan to go out, but because the Cambridge fans were at the pub drawing attention to themselves.

“You now know it isn’t the case the people from the Railway all went out for some reason to do with a pre-existing plan.”

15:08

Cambridge fans at door and window of the Railway before anyone came out, say witnesses

Mr Lawson: “The crown’s witnesses tell you there were members of what they call the Cambridge group at the door and window of the Railway before anyone came out.

“There are three witnesses and none of them were directly involved in the incident. They were watching from a safe distance. They are independent, under no immediate threat themselves.

“And the crown say witnesses such as that are inevitably less reliable than witnesses close to it and directly involved. In deploying your common sense, you may think entirely the opposite. A witness who is more of a dispassionate observer is more likely to be accurate in recounting what they saw.

“What demonstrates the blinkeredness of the prosecution is three of these people, all viewing it for themselves, describe exactly the same thing – members of the Cambridge group all at the window before anyone came out. How would three people all make the same mistake?”

15:04

May have been another reason for leaving pub, says defence

Mr Lawson: “The prosecution are desperate for people’s going outside to be pursuant to conspiracy. They want to ignore any other reason for going out at that point in time.

“You will have to consider whether there was any other reason why people might have had their attention drawn to the window and gone out at that time.”

14:57

'You may say he was going out to see what was going on, to be a mere spectator'

Speaking about CCTV footage of Greg Allen in the pub at 7.14pm, just after Pullen left, Mr Lawson said: “You may think he is watching what is going on outside.

“What does he then do? He walks round the bar to the left, out of the view of camera six and into the view of camera four. He puts on his coat, and was he keen as mustard to get out the door? No. Does he rush to get his coat on and get out? No.

“The picture says it all. He is not rushing. By the time he walks out onto the street, Pullen has been outside for over a minute. He didn’t rush to get out the door. He wasn’t one of the leaders. You may say he was going out to see what was going on, to be a mere spectator.

14:54

Allen not in Railway office for 'nefarious scoping out'

Mr Lawson suggests Greg Allen went into the office of the Railway Tavern with Chambers because he didn’t want the police to see him, as he was subject to a banning order.

He said this could be the reason, rather than “nefarious scoping out”.

14:44

Allen was in Rochdale until after Spread Eagle incident, says defence

Mr Lawson: “Whatever the others were doing, Greg Allen was in Rochdale until 3.56pm that day. He hadn’t been with the others in the Railway at all. The first sighting we have of him there is at 5.41pm.

“If there is an allegation of the others spending the afternoon discussing this in the Railway, this isn’t the case for Allen. Be careful about viewing evidence against one or some as direct evidence against everyone.”

Mr Lawson: “The incident at the Spread Eagle took place between 2.27pm and 2.37pm. It follows that no conduct prior to 2.30pm can form any conduct which is part of the count one offence - the conspiracy - because it cannot predate the conspiracy in the first place. Because what the crown say is that it was revenge for that very incident.”

He claims there has been a “complete lack of clarity” in the crown’s allegations.

14:32

Defence speeches begin

Matthew Lawson, defending Greg Allen, reminds the jury the defendants do not have to prove their innocence and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

He continues that they must only return a guilty verdict if they are sure of it.

Mr Lawson: “There is no room for any sympathy or prejudice.

“You have heard about Mr Dobbin’s injuries as a reason he has not been able to give evidence. That is where the matter stands.”

14:24

The trial is getting under way once more

The jury has re-entered the courtroom.

14:13

Hello again

The jury has not yet been called back into the courtroom.

13:03

Court breaks for lunch

There will now be a break for lunch until 2pm.

13:02

Prosecution concludes: 'I almost felt I was being transported to the dark days...'

Mr Jackson: “That’s it. When I first got the papers for this case, I almost felt I was being transported to the dark days of the 1970s, when you could barely turn on the television without seeing images of football violence. What took place that day was pretty shocking.”

He thanks the jury for their patience and fortitude during the trial.

13:00

More on Young...

Mr Jackson: “The issue is this. When he hid him away, did Young know or believe Courtnell had committed the relevant offence? The answer is yes. The ‘hear the helicopter, we have smashed them’ text pierces that lie. And so he is guilty on count three.”

12:57

Prosecution: Young told 'a pack of lies'

Mr Jackson said: “On Ian Young’s account, when he was upstairs with Courtnell, all he knew was that ‘something had happened outside’ and that Courtnell was in danger of being caught for breaching his banning order.”

The prosecutor argues that this account does not make sense in light of the text to his girlfriend.

He said: “Ian Young told you a pack of lies. He is too cowardly to admit the truth. He could not explain the text to police.

“Ian Young couldn’t even admit in his evidence what is patently evident – that what took place is an ambush. He is a stranger to the truth. He had to admit in his evidence that he lied to the police. He asked you to excuse those lies in his interviews by saying he was in an unfamiliar environment. They were quite deliberate lies designed to hide his guilt.”

12:55

'He was celebrating with a smiley face'

At 7.25pm he sent a text to his girlfriend: ‘Hear the helicopter? We have just smashed them. [Smiley face].’

Mr Jackson: “He put himself as part of the group that did it. He was celebrating with a smiley face. The plan had come to fruition.”

12:46

Prosecutor turns to Young's texts

Mr Jackson now turns to Young’s text messages.

Mr Jackson: “At 5.37pm he texted: ‘Hi mate. See you in an hour. Just having a bit of trouble at football.’ He also later texted: ‘Did you get beaten up?’”

The prosecutor asks the jury why Young was unable to give an explanation for this.

He said: “Why would a man who played no part in the planning have been so ready to help one of them who had been involved? The answer is he played his role in that conspiracy to the full. He facilitated the mass exodus by keeping landlord Peter Dare busy.”

12:39

'There is no honour or loyalty among those in this trial'

Mr Jackson: “He has spent this trial trying to distance himself from those in the dock with him. There is no honour or loyalty among those in this trial. It is every man for himself.”